PDA

View Full Version : Earth 'will expire by 2050' (WWF report states)


Harveylives
11-14-2003, 07:09 PM
The world's ticking timebomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth 'will expire by 2050'

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised


Observer Worldview

Mark Townsend and Jason Burke
Sunday July 7, 2002
The Observer

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.
A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

Antrobus
11-14-2003, 07:43 PM
I hope I'm gone by then. At my age, I should be!!
It's very scary though - 47 years is not enough time to plan anything so massive as colonization. Well, maybe it is if push comes to shove!

grinner
11-14-2003, 07:59 PM
Wow... I never knew that Vince McMahon would be into a study like this.

Frunium Slip
11-14-2003, 08:22 PM
Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.

Well, at least humans are making an impact, and it seems, going boldly where no man has gone before.

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Interesting that the continent which purportedly uses the least of Earth's resources has the most animals endangered. Where are the figures for the white tail deer, whose numbers are continuously growing, despite the hunting season, and I might mention, damaged vehicles every year? Seems they would be more affected by the vast consumerism displayed by those frellin' North Americans...

grinner
11-14-2003, 08:24 PM
You want to know how to increase animal populations... have legal hunting.

LadyCrais
11-14-2003, 10:33 PM
The rhinos and elephants are disappearing in part because the Asian countries have got some ridiculous notion that the ground up horns and tusks of these animals are aphrodesiacs. They refuse to make importing them illegal, thus spawning an army of poachers doing their damndest to kill as many as possible, as fast as possible. No part of the animal is used other than the horn/tusk. Just dead rhinos and elephants littering the landscape with their horns/tusks sawed off.

Next week I'll have the rare treat of actually getting to attend a lecture by E.O. Wilson, who is unquestionably one of the top 5 biologists of the last century. He's entitled his talk "The Future of Life", so it will be interesting to see if this is what he's addressing.

And I sincerely hope that every person who refuses to believe that man is destroying this planet lives long enough to attempt to live with the results of their short-sighted blindness. At a minimum I hope they live long enough to see that they've destroyed any chance for their own children to survive.

talyn3
11-14-2003, 10:46 PM
that sucks

Lord Loser
11-14-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by LadyCrais
And I sincerely hope that every person who refuses to believe that man is destroying this planet lives long enough to attempt to live with the results of their short-sighted blindness. I do too, I can see nothing wrong with living to be 1000.

darius
11-15-2003, 10:12 AM
I'm not anti-hunting or anything but I really don't see how legal hunting would increase animal populations much, many species of animals have been hunted into extinction. Unless you mean humans as the animal population, or legal hunting on humans. :)

Third EYe
11-15-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by darius
I'm not anti-hunting or anything but I really don't see how legal hunting would increase animal populations much, many species of animals have been hunted into extinction. Unless you mean humans as the animal population, or legal hunting on humans. :)

True, some have been hunted into extinction. This was out of ignorance. However, take the white tailed deer for example. If you don't hunt them, and thier numbers grow, their food supply diminishes and they begin to starve, not just a few, but all. Another scenario is that they have no more habitat to seek for food, they begin to wander more and more into busy traffic lanes, and bang, they die.

Hunters are, for the most part, true environmentalists. I can get many many examples of why hunting needs to happen, and happen a lot.

Frellster
11-15-2003, 03:43 PM
I don't like hunting myself, and its perposterous to think that legal hunting would help the black rhino. If you legalized hunting of the black rhino there wouldn't be any left alive within a week.

White tailed deer & elk are another matter, but elk wasting desease is a reality - prions - and you could die from eating it.

There is a puma in my neighborhood. OK, he's a mountain puma, but occasionally comes down into town. There's also a herd of deer. Thankfully, noone hunts the deer. If they did, Mr. Puma would have to start eating dogs and cats. Currently he only hunts deer.

grinner
11-15-2003, 03:59 PM
not if you charge a big price for a license. Then it would pay to breed them.

darius
11-15-2003, 04:19 PM
If they charge alot for the license then it would pay to make fake ones as well.

stellar
11-15-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by grinner
Wow... I never knew that Vince McMahon would be into a study like this.

Yeah nothing I believe more than foretellings of the appocalypse by Jimmy "Superfly" Snooka (sp).

I do agree with you on the hunting bit too. Trust in Nugent.

grinner
11-15-2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by darius
If they charge alot for the license then it would pay to make fake ones as well. you don't hunt do you?

Judith
11-15-2003, 06:47 PM
WWF...what kind of organization is it?

I mean, I know it's an environmentalist organization, but it's gotten really hard to tell which organizations are funded by ecoterrorists (or are blatently ecoterrorists like GreenPeace).

I'm all for environmentalism, but I'm also for people such as loggers and fishermen having jobs. Which is why I try to look for environmental organizations that seem to seek some kind of balance. Which isn't easy.

Frellster
11-15-2003, 07:16 PM
Its the World Wildlife Fund. They won a suit against a wrestling organization forcing them to change to WWE. They claimed people would be confused!!! I think this is funny because I used to donate to the World Wildlife Fund. It had nature pictures on the flier and environmentalists articles - NOT ONCE did I think "Hey is this like wrestling?" So I think their suit against wrestling was a bit silly, but I support their enviromental efforts.

Judith
11-15-2003, 07:28 PM
No, I know it's the World Wildlife Fund, I know that they have a panda logo. That's about all I know. But...do they try to promote environmentalism through legal efforts, or do they encourage their members to drive nails into tress that are marked to be cut down?

fermicat
11-15-2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Frellster
Its the World Wildlife Fund. They won a suit against a wrestling organization forcing them to change to WWE. They claimed people would be confused!!! I think this is funny because I used to donate to the World Wildlife Fund. It had nature pictures on the flier and environmentalists articles - NOT ONCE did I think "Hey is this like wrestling?" So I think their suit against wrestling was a bit silly, but I support their enviromental efforts.

It confused someone I ran into. I was at a soccer game and had some stuff in a WWF tote bag (complete with panda logo) and some teenage boy thought that meant I was a wrestling fan. O-kaaaaayyyy.

Third EYe
11-15-2003, 08:13 PM
wrestlers should sue the wrestling organizations, for calling that crap wrestling.

darius
11-15-2003, 08:54 PM
you don't hunt do you?

You would have to help me out in showing me how a hunting license is different for any other I.D. or a fishing license or something, because I honestly don't know.

I don't hunt, but do you hunt rhinos(hope not)? They actively try to breed many endangered species, but I don't think they lack funds as much as animals to breed. The people who hunt them don't really care about licenses or park wardens. They aren't hunting them for fun usually, and I don't think they would just settle for any limits imposed just so they could do it legally.

talyn3
11-16-2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by stellar


I do agree with you on the hunting bit too. Trust in Nugent.



hahaha

Darth Buddha
11-16-2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by darius
You would have to help me out in showing me how a hunting license is different for any other I.D. or a fishing license or something, because I honestly don't know.

I don't hunt, but do you hunt rhinos(hope not)? They actively try to breed many endangered species, but I don't think they lack funds as much as animals to breed. The people who hunt them don't really care about licenses or park wardens. They aren't hunting them for fun usually, and I don't think they would just settle for any limits imposed just so they could do it legally.

In the U.S., we are probably in need of MORE hunting. White tail deer populations are exploding... especially in the suburban areas where anti-hunting sentiment runs so high.

I can see the concerns of gun use... perhaps a very long archery season would work instead. You don't see many bow-hunters shoot at the first thing that moves... you have got to get that first shot JUST right.

I've got to agree with grinner when it comes to legalized hunting for big game that isn't prized for mystical properties or bush-meat. It is the best way to pay for managing the resource. It also provides a means of control (more licenses on up years, fewer when trending downward).

But these asinine folks who want to eat bear paws, rhino horns, or whatever else for health or sex drive aren't affected by that. Ivory hunters aren't affected by that.

The one bit of good news on the magical mystery tour crap is that Viagra and its new competitors have reduced demand for aphrodesiacs. The first drug that works on women will make that much more of an impact.

But bushmeat and ivory trade will remain.

grinner
11-16-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by darius
You would have to help me out in showing me how a hunting license is different for any other I.D. or a fishing license or something, because I honestly don't know.

I don't hunt, but do you hunt rhinos(hope not)? They actively try to breed many endangered species, but I don't think they lack funds as much as animals to breed. The people who hunt them don't really care about licenses or park wardens. They aren't hunting them for fun usually, and I don't think they would just settle for any limits imposed just so they could do it legally. During hunting seasons, there are an amazing amount of government types out. And the licenses are NOT like a drivers license or anything like that. They are TAGS that get changed every year. The Tags are in a sequential order by locale, and if you shoot something that you don't have a tag for... you can loose your privileges for 10 years. There are checkpoints where you MUST bring your kill to have it checked. Say you have a Buck license and 2 Doe permits... and you shoot a Buck and a button buck that you mistooked for a doe... you just used all 3 of your tags.
Tags are nearly impossible to counterfeit because it isn't until a few days before Hunting Season opens that you can pick them up.

Lord Loser
11-16-2003, 12:24 PM
Well, we could get into a debate about hunting "privileges", but that is not the point of the logical argument.

Simply explained, if there is profit in the White Rhino, then it will be cultivated and used to obtain that profit. I have a friend who went on Safari in South Africa. When he returned, he told me this direct quote: "There is no shortage of game in South Africa". And then he went on to explain why.

When elephants were endangered, and protected by the South African equivalent of the endangered species act, no one could afford to have an elephant on their property. It invited confiscations without compensation, and the like. Fences went up to keep elephants (rhino's etc) off of their property, and if found on the property, then the shoot, shovel, and shutup management technique was employed. Under this system, animal numbers declined. The SA govt. looked at the results (decreasing numbers) and decided that rather than try and enforce and punish people for just trying to make a living, they would change their policies. They figured since at the current rates, these animals would be extinct in a few years, they had nothing to lose. The govt went to all the ranches in SA and told them that if they would sell their livestock and only raise game, then the game would become the ranchers property and they could do anything they wished with the game. The ranchers could kill it, sell it, watch it, whatever. An amazing thing happened, all at once fences started to be put up to keep game ON the property. Game became a marketable commodity. Now poaching became theft of property, and poachers were shot on sight. The game numbers exploded, and now there aren't any endangered animals in South Africa that I'm aware of. The real problem in most of Africa is the lack of stable nations. If there is no stability to private property, then there is no incentive to manage anything, and it becomes a game of survival, so large animals are killed for their most valuable assets.

Private property is the only thing that has worked everytime it's been tried. It is the only thing that creates the necessary balance between cost and benefit naturally. It creates good husbandry of land and resources. This is the solution to what ails the world, however when the individual ownes the resource base, then the govt is naturally beholden to its citizens and doesn't have the absolute power that those in govt crave. Therefore private property is the antithesis of tyranny and the power hungry so it is discouraged or not allowed to exist in those nations in which tyranny is the govt of choice.

Make individuals responsible for the endangered species by giving them a chance to profit from their actions, and you will see the solutions appear as if by magic.